But what happens when a cyclist gets squashed because they don't have a proximity device that costs £10? Why shouldn't pedestrians have one?
^ this. It's pushing responsibility onto the cyclist and will surely make the driver more complacent....
Here's a tester, though - were you a daily commuting cyclist where this is available, would you splurge £10 (or £5 if you were a student) on one?
I get the argument you make / agree with, and I also see some of that - and dislike the notion that you have to put your hand in your pocket to be deemed as having done due dilligence so that drivers of vehicles may not squish you.
All the same, though, if I was commuting by bike, daily, in the area where these were live? I think I'd get one. Not to fit in, not because I necessarily agree with the concept, not because I don't want to be seen or inferred as avoiding safety - I think I'd get one purely out of self-interest. That idea that some relatively inexpensive dongle, may just be the one thing that's the difference between injury and a near miss.
After all, isn't some of that the argument predicated on cyclists on the road wearing helmets? That which can see some angling for contributory negligence in the event that a cyclist is injured in a road traffic accident (and yes, I'm gonna use the 'A' word, because I don't buy this revisionist nonsense about outlawing the term in favour of "collision") whilst not wearing a helmet.
I'm not suggesting for a second that others should buy one, or advocacy of them - I'm just wondering where the line would be between intellectual disagreement with the concept, and anything overriding from self-interest.
This page intentionally left blank